Gay by Choice? The Science of Sexual Identity
If science proves sexual orientation is more fluid than we've been led to believe, can homosexuality still be a protected right?
when he leaves his tidy apartment in an ocean-side city somewhere in America, Aaron turns on the radio to a light rock station. "For the cat," he explains, "so she won't get lonely." He's short and balding and dressed mostly in black, and right before I turn on the recorder, he asks me for the dozenth time to guarantee that I won't reveal his name or anything else that might identify him. "I don't want to be a target for gay activists," he says as we head out into the misty day. "Harassment like that I just don't need."
Aaron sets a much brisker pace down the boardwalk than you would expect of a doughy 51-year-old, and once convinced I'll respect his anonymity, he turns out to be voluble. Over the crash of the waves, he spares no details as he describes how much he hated the fact that he was gay, how the last thing in the world he wanted to do was act on his desire to have sex with another man. "I'm going to be perfectly blatant about it," he says. "I'm not going to have anal intercourse or give or receive any BJs either, okay?" He managed to maintain his celibacy through college and into adulthood. But when, in the late 1980s, he found himself so "insanely jealous" of his roommate's girlfriend that he had to move out, he knew the time had come to do something. One of the few people who knew that Aaron was gay showed him an article in Newsweek about a group offering "reparative therapy"—psychological treatment for people who want to become "ex-gay."
"It turns out that I didn't have the faintest idea what love was," he says. That's not all he didn't know. He also didn't know that his same-sex attraction, far from being inborn and inescapable, was a thirst for the love that he had not received from his father, a cold and distant man prone to angry outbursts, coupled with a fear of women kindled by his intrusive and overbearing mother, all of which added up to a man who wanted to have sex with other men just so he could get some male attention. He didn't understand any of this, he tells me, until he found a reparative therapist whom he consulted by phone for nearly 10 years, attended weekend workshops, and learned how to "be a man."
Aaron interrupts himself to eye a woman in shorts jogging by. "Sometimes there are very good-looking women at this boardwalk," he says. "Especially when they're not bundled up." He remembers when he started noticing women's bodies, a few years into his therapy. "The first thing I noticed was their legs. The curve of their legs." He's dated women, had sex with them even, although "I was pretty awkward," he says. "It just didn't work." Aaron has a theory about this: "I never used my body in a sexual way. I think the men who actually act it out have a greater success in terms of being sexual with women than the men who didn't act it out." Not surprisingly, he's never had a long-term relationship, and he's pessimistic about his prospects. "I can't make that jump from having this attraction to doing something about it." But, he adds, it's wrong to think "if you don't make it with women, then you haven't changed." The important thing is that "now I like myself. I'm not emotionally shut down. I'm comfortable in my own body. I don't have to be drawn to men anymore. I'm content at this point to lead an asexual life, which is what I've done for most of my life anyway." He adds, "I'm a very detached person."
It's raining a little now. We stop walking so I can tuck the microphone under the flap of Aaron's shirt pocket, and I feel him recoil as I fiddle with his button. I'm remembering his little cubicle of an apartment, its unlived-in feel, and thinking that he may be the sort of guy who just doesn't like anyone getting too close, but it's also possible that therapy has taught him to submerge his desire so deep that he's lost his motive for intimacy.
That's the usual interpretation of reparative therapy—that to the extent that it does anything, it leads people to repress rather than change their natural inclinations, that its claims to change sexual orientation are an outright fraud perpetrated by the religious right on people who have internalized the homophobia of American society, personalized the political in such a way as to reject their own sexuality and stunt their love lives. But Aaron scoffs at these notions, insisting that his wish to go straight had nothing to do with right-wing religion or politics—he's a nonobservant Jew and a lifelong Democrat who volunteered for George McGovern, has a career in public service, and thinks George Bush is a war criminal. It wasn't a matter of ignorance—he has an advanced degree—and it really wasn't a psychopathological thing—he rejects the idea that he's ever suffered from internalized homophobia. He just didn't want to be gay, and, like millions of Americans dissatisfied with their lives, he sought professional help and reinvented himself.
Self-reconstruction is what people in my profession (I am a practicing psychotherapist) specialize in, but when it comes to someone like Aaron, most of us draw the line. All the major psychotherapy guilds have barred their members from researching or practicing reparative therapy on the grounds that it is inherently unethical to treat something that is not a disease, that it contributes to oppression by pathologizing homosexuality, and that it is dangerous to patients whose self-esteem can only suffer when they try to change something about themselves that they can't (and shouldn't have to) change. Aaron knows this, of course, which is why he's at great pains to prove he's not pulling a Ted Haggard. For if he's not a poseur, then he is a walking challenge to the political and scientific consensus that has emerged over the last century and a half: that sexual orientation is inborn and immutable, that efforts to change it are bound to fail, and that discrimination against gay people is therefore unjust.
But as crucial as this consensus has been to the struggle for gay rights, it may not be as sound as some might wish. While scientists have found intriguing biological differences between gay and straight people, the evidence so far stops well short of proving that we are born with a sexual orientation that we will have for life. Even more important, some research shows that sexual orientation is more fluid than we have come to think, that people, especially women, can and do move across customary sexual orientation boundaries, that there are ex-straights as well as ex-gays. Much of this research has stayed below the radar of the culture warriors, but reparative therapists are hoping to use it to enter the scientific mainstream and advocate for what they call the right of self-determination in matters of sexual orientation. If they are successful, gay activists may soon find themselves scrambling to make sense of a new scientific and political landscape.
Page 1 of 5 
Same-sex attraction and sexuality are natural phenomena, which is perfectly clear given the behavior of thousands of other species, including most higher primates.
What's at issue is how many people with same-sex attraction are 100% gay. And, likewise, how many people with OPPOSITE-sex attraction are 100% straight.
Little research has disproven Kinsey's groundbreaking studies about attraction and desire. But because of Americans' needs to put things into neat little boxes, the idea that most humans are capable of attraction to both sexes is very frightening indeed. I certainly don't doubt that there are people with no attraction to one sex or the other, but I also think that people who behave exclusively straight or gay for social pressure reasons, rather than actual orientation, are far more numerous than anyone currently admits.
We've been looking at the orientation question from the wrong angles, when trying to prove or disprove its "natural" origins. People are trying to figure out what "causes" same-sex attraction. I think the research is far better aimed at figuring out what "causes" a lack of attraction to one sex or the other. Not to pathologize it, but to understand it. Instead of the idea of a heteronormative state with homosexuality as the anomaly, we should be looking at a binormative state with both heterosexuality and homosexuality as the anomalies.
This is especially true for women, who have been proven to have very flexible orientation. Personally, I think women's orientation has always been flexible (in general.) It's only because social acceptance of same-sex sexuality in women has increased that it is becoming more common. If we accept same-sex sexuality in males, the same should happen there.
Regardless of how much of orientation and sexual behavior we can attribute to genes or environment, it should remain perfectly legal. The one thing that no science--however marginally legitimate--has been able to prove is that same-sex relationships and sexuality are in any way socially or psychologically damaging. Every ounce of damage all comes from the social stigma surrounding it. In cultures that accept same-sex sexuality, instances of STDs, substance abuse and depression among gay and bi folks are far lower.
Take religion out of science--as it should be for every subject--and the answer to all of this is perfectly clear: whether nature, nuture, choice or a combination thereof, there's no reason to legally restrict same-sex relationships and sexuality.
Critics like to claim that attempting to change one's sexual orientation puts one at risk for depression and even suicide.
There no doubt have been those who have pursued change for the wrong reasons, or in the wrong ways, and thereby have inadvertently increased the internal conflict and struggle rather than decreasing it.
These are unfortunate cases, but what do they prove? Only that that particular therapy or ministry was not helpful or appropriate for those particular individuals at the time.
It doesn't prove that they are not helpful to or appropriate for anyone ever -- any more than the grumblings of a few lapsed Catholics would "prove" that Catholicism is harmful to all.
Especially when there is significant evidence of others who benefit.
Whether anyone accepts/likes it or not, the truth ignored by both camps referenced in this piece is that we have a creator who has tagged homosexual sex acts as an abominable sin. I makes no difference why someone engages in homosexual sex acts, scientifically speaking. The fact that they do can never be justified by psychology or biology. What is more, no culture of man has the right to decide that sex acts forbidden by God are perfectly alright. God did not create sex for our indiscriminate use as a recreational sport, or to satisfy an unbridled sexual appetite with anyone who happens to arouse desire in us. He created sex exclusively for the marriage bed of a man and his wife. All other sex is sin, including extra-marital sex, pre-marital sex, and casual sex with others of the same gender, consensual or otherwise. It is not an issue to be "resolved" by genetic or psychological study. It has already been resolved by Him who made us in the first place, and who identifies all sex outside of marriage as sin. In short, what people do with their bodies is a moral choice they make, regardless of any predispositions, attractions, or so called orientations they use to excuse and justify their sexual behavior. These are the facts, as revealed to us by Him who created us and gave us free will to choose our destiny.
He will not judge anybody on the basis of 'orientation', but will rather judge us all on the basis of the choices we make, including how we choose to conduct ourselves sexually.
Gay by choice?
Would this commentator have a distraught lonely isolated confused person abandon any human contact that nourishes his unasked for makeup? Would it be better for this person to take the path suggested until he or her commits suicide? The creator surely did not throw these circumstances at folks who are gay to watch them perish in misery through no fault of their own. That is a circumstance few are equipped to handle, and unchangeable in most. No one asks to be gay. Instead of help and understanding, gays endure ridicule and scorn from ignorant people that have no idea what it is like.
bable
Um what is abominable is the demented belief that your bible was written by some skygod.
It was written by MEN, to control their behavior.
What is abominable is that kreestians use this book as a weapon against those whom they would abuse or rule.
As one who was subjected to your abominable religion it took me to the edge of reason and suicide before I learned to believe in myself.
So take your screwed up beliefs, your babel and yourself and go find a nice padded room.
Our society has enough ills cause by religion. I'm sick of you and those like you.
You and those like should not be allowed to run around lose in society.
I have had the likes of you try to burn my home, light a cross on my yard, attempt to lynch me, and I did nothing wrong so if you are wise which I doubt, leave off I think the world citizens are tired of your spew. I don't care what religion , fundys are basically mental cases and should have lobotomies or counseling or drugs, like you did to gay folks in the 40s50s and 60s, I personally knew a few that were lobotomised, castrated or subjected to electro torture. Hey its good enough for us why can't you try some?
What happened to treat others as you would be treated? Love thy neighbor?
I have known both kinds of Christians and the real ones are as horrified of how you kreestians act as any civilized person should be. I realise Christianity is not the only religion that is reprehensible in their fundy views, there are the two kinds of Muslims, Hindi, and so on those that believe that others are worthy of kindness and respect and those like you who have no kindness or charity in your hearts.
It must be sad to be so bitter and hateful, perhaps spiteful.
I do treat others with respect, but I am at the end of my patience with the nonsense.
Do you not care what kind of hurt you put on others or is it just a sick form of entertainment?
Why does there have to be a scientific or religious 'reason' for me being gay, or why you are so interested in what goes on in my bedroom? I sure did not invite you there. Why are you people so interested in my so called sin? Don't you have a life? Why can't you religious mind your own business, I am sure you might be happier. If God has something to say about it he can tell me himself I am sure he does not need you as a mouthpiece.
You presume much to claim you speak for God.
@HILLBILLYROB maybe you
@HILLBILLYROB
maybe you should calm down since irrationality comes from anger. insulting the Christians will not create a better society for you, and as such your behavior will further push those who disagree with you away. in terms of persuasion this is the wrong approach and as a "dignified" human being that your self-righteous claims you to be, maybe you should consider the audience before you spew out anger and find out ways to convince them otherwise. as simple as it sounds to remove religion from science, it is not so much the religion than the personal views and morals. who are you to say "your morality is wrong"? hypocritical in aspects if i may for you to determine a "real Christian" if you yourself are not or do not believe as they do.
Gay and smart.
-
tagged as:
- solution
I kind of agree. I'm 17 and gay and think that sexual orientation shouldn't have anything to do with what's right or wrong it's when you have sex before your'e mature. Alot of the kids i know had sex already and i think it's wrong but teens have always practiced misconduct. Now pre-marital sex is complicated i mean people in order to be happy have to have sex and here's my view on pre marital sex. If the person hasn't got married and had sex the only way i would except that is if the person had been in a commited relationship for some time. If they only knew each other for a month than that's just nasty. God's word is a moral and i think anybody homo, bi, or straight could use the moral. Now when it comes to morals governing people than that doesn't work. What i mean there is that if your'e going to follow the rules all the time than you're not going to get anywhere because you'll be so constricted you can't do anything. So back on the judgement of choices and gods interaction anybody who makes a bad sexual decision will suffer the consequences and will have to learn from their stupidity.
Bruce, the idea that the bible represents a god's desires is really silly. Think about it, what would you expect a book written by an omniscient being to be like? Wouldn't you expect it to fill you with awe, to amaze you page after page with unknowable insights and profoundly useful knowledge, facts no human could ever know? Wouldn't you expect it to be worlds apart from any human writing you've ever seen? You know in your heart that the bible's not like that, its filled with hatred, violence, zenophobia, factual and geographical errors, contradictions, absurdities, and things that don't exist - it reads exactly like one would expect it to read if written by primitive bronze age tribesmen, because that's who DID write it. Think about it, the idea that a just and loving god would create imperfect people knowing they would fail to find him and his religion a convincing idea and that that god would then torture them eternally for it is an impossibility. A god that tortures and kills his innocent self to appease himeself in order to overlook the wrongdoings of others is a patently absurd idea. A just and loving god that tortures and kills the innocent Jesus for wrongdoings Jesus is not responsible for simply cannot exist.
The fact of the matter is morality is a matter of how we treat others. The essence of morality is do whatever you want, but hurt no one. Gays in a loving relationship are hurting no one and by definition are behaving morally. Those who would interfere in those relationships for their own trivial psychological pleasure are by defintion behaving immorally.
What the bible actually does say.....
-
tagged as:
- result
I would like to see those "contradictions". Also, the Bible is filled with LOVE, that is the BASIS of Christianity. In the New Testament it states that the greatest commandment is LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart, sould, and mind and the second greatest commandment is like it LOVE your neighbor as yourself. To me that sounds like love. The Bible was written by people, but there was devine inspiration.
God did not make humans imperfect. He made ADAM and EVE ,a man and a woman, to populate the world. God also gave them FREE WILL to do right or wrong. Adam and Even chose to disobey God and where then cast out of the Garden of Eden.
Also, Jesus died as a sacrifice for your sins, my sins, and the sins of everyone in the world. Jesus knew that it had to be done and had the choice to follow through with it.
Hmmm, Bruce's argument makes sense, except for the fact that there exists no evidence anywhere of any kind of God or supreme being -- let alone one which despises homosexuality.
"Whether anyone accepts/likes it or not, the truth ignored by both camps referenced in this piece is that we have a creator who has tagged homosexual sex acts as an abominable sin."
The problem with that statement above is god is a fairy tale and gay people are real, and real is always going to win out over fake in the long run.
Randi and Stuart, First allow me to preface my commentary by saying that there is so much more to a gay person than just his or her sexuality. They, like all of us, have been created in the image of God and are no less loved by God than any other human being. The True God, God in Christ, is a God of love, not hate. What God hates is sin which is present in all of us, whether it be in the form of sexual immorality, pride or a "white" lie. I find that people who come to the table with presuppositions such as yours regarding God and the Bible actually have never read the Bible in its entirety. To discuss it in any meaningful way you should at least read it with a heart that wants to seek and know God. If you do read it, you will see that God has revealed who He is in the person of Jesus Christ. His death on the cross was not meaningless nor was it orchestrated by a cruel, hateful God. God Himself, in the person of Christ, laid his life down for all of us willingly because there is no other way for human beings to come into a right relationship with God. We were created to know Him and to have a relationship with Him but our sin has separated us from Him. We must repent and believe the gospel. As for Stuart's comment regarding evidence, I submit that there is evidence all around us of a loving God. He has revealed it to us in nature which He created, the Bible which is His Word and in the person of Jesus Christ His Son, who not only fulfilled Old Testament prophecy concerning Messiah but validated the authenticity of the scriptures during His earthly ministry. Jesus Christ is by the way, an objective historical fact. There is a plethora of objective historical evidence to the Christian faith. It is not blind but based on fact. One does not have to commit intellectual suicide to become a Christian. How about origins? When you talk about evidence for God's existence, you must also consider the origin of the Universe. There cannot be an uncaused cause. How did the universe come into existence? Here's another example - can you see gravity? No, of course not but we can see its effects. Foolish is the man who says he doesn't believe in gravity and feels he can jump off a roof and survive. Likewise, the fool says in his heart "there is no God." Life is far too complex to have just come about randomly. We are not just products of some protoplasmic slime pool. There is a purpose and meaning to life which the Bible reveals. If we all do our own thing, that is, if we do not believe in a God to whom we are accountable, the ultimate culturual end is anarchy; the ultimate spiritual end is Hell. Relativism is a very slippery sloap. Ideas have consequences. You can see the results of atheistic thinking in the ideology of Stalin and Lennin or a perverted understanding of God and His Word as with in the life of Hitler and the Nazi reign. The fact is there is a God to whom we are all accountable, whether you like it or not. Some things are true even if you don't believe them. It behooves you to investigate all the facts and the claims of Christ and the Bible before you and Randi make assertions like the ones you made. I reiterate, God is a God of love. He loves the gay person as well as the straight but He hates sin and cannot bear to look upon it because He is altogether Holy. Therefore, none of us could stand before Him unless we accept the gift of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. Homosexuality, like adultery, like a lie, like stealing, is a sin. Despite all the research, the scientific community has yet to come up with a gay gene. I say to the gay person, if you truly surrender to the Lordship of Christ, He will set you free. To Randi and Stuart, I say, don't be afraid to open your heart to Christ. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Start reading the Bible; the gospel of John is a good place to start and may God open the eyes of your heart.
Randi, You were right about one thing for which I failed to give you credit, the Bible was written by men. Those men however wrote as they were superintended by God. Contrary to your assertion however, they were not primitive bronze age tribesmen; they were intelligent, rational human beings and moreover, eyewitnesses to God's majesty and grace. They wrote as they were directed by the Holy Spirit. One final point, God does not have to stand at the bar of your reason. He is God. Your view of Him is too small. You want a god you are comfortable with, that fits into your definition of what he should be like and that my friend may or may not have negative consequences for you in this life but most assuredly horrific and unimaginable consequences for you in the life to come.
Imagine that, being
Imagine that, being threatened with God! Assuming that one agrees with the theory of creation, christianity teaches that God created everything including the Devil, a ones upon a time head angel..etc. Add to that the claim of his omnipotence, knows all, past present and future...etc. Add to that the claim of his benovalence and mercy....etc. Put all that together and you have God knowingly creating gay and straight people in his infinate knowledge. (He could just have said, let there be no gays or let there be no straight people). He chose to create both. Who the hell are you hypocretes to critisize a God that you claim knows all and makes no mistakes. If God saw fit to have gays in his world, stop with the hate and do as the bible says, love thy neighbor and stay out of his or her bedroom. Light some passion in your own bedroom and you won't have a need for the peeping tom complex.
I my self was born in the house of god. But after some time. I didn't get it. Why is it wrong to gay,bi,les.After sometime I stop and make my own path. I like to know even now. How can you hate someone because who they love. I myself think same sex or not. Love is love why do you hate people for loving someone. I have many friends that are gay,les and bi. And they are all happy. And they never don't care what anyone said about it. I think god made us. To love each other. Not hate or dislike someone only because of there sexual ways. If I'm with a man or a women. I know that noting I do is wrong. Because what I feel is real. God as noting to do with it. And you can't say that we are sinning because we are with someone the same sex. Because if its sin being with the person you love. This world be in chaos. Who ever you love man or women. Don't let anyone put you down. You are your own person. No one can take that from you.
Bible believer or not. The question is about the civil rights of homosexuals under the United States Constitution.
Biological or not. Religious freedom is protected and so should the homosexual who believes differently than the usual evangelical christian.
Any questions?
Eleni said "I find that people who come to the table with presuppositions such as yours regarding God and the Bible actually have never read the Bible in its entirety."
Sounds to me like you're the one who's never read the bible, I have and I would never have believed it could so totally disgrace itself and Christianity, it depicts one of the most despicable, hateful characters in all of fiction. The book is totally nonsensical and totally unbelievable as the supposed work of an omnisicent being. It reads exactly like one would expect the work of primitive bronze age bigots to read.
Eleni said "God Himself, in the person of Christ, laid his life down for all of us willingly because there is no other way for human beings to come into a right relationship with God.".
Preposterous. He's supposed to be God!He's supposed to be all powerful, god can do ANYTHING, remember?! Your god most certainly didn't need to commit the evil act of killing the innocent Jesus for wrongs of others Jesus has no responsibility for - the foundation of your religion is crazy, its simply too crazy to be true.
Eleni said "Jesus Christ is by the way, an objective historical fact.".
You're used to believing things without any evidence, that's why you're a Christian. Fact is there are no historical accounts of Jesus apart from the bible, he was a fictional character.
Eleni said "When you talk about evidence for God's existence, you must also consider the origin of the Universe. There cannot be an uncaused cause.". So what caused your god then?! If you believe your logic you still have the same problem with god - who caused your god? There can be no uncaused cause, remember?! If you say your god just always existed then it makes just as much sense to say the universe always existed.
Eleni said "There is a purpose and meaning to life which the Bible reveals". There is nothing in that book that remotely even begins to redeem it for the hatred and evil in it. Your "god" demands that the Jews invade others lands and slaughter them all without mercy whether or not the inhabitants try and make a peace treaty. Your god demands that innocent women, children, and babies be killed - see Deuteronomy 7:2. What kind of "god" does that? An evil dispicable one, that's what kind Eleni.
Eleni said "God is a God of love. He loves the gay person." An outrageous lie, you obviously haven't read that hate filled bible of yours where god orders or carries ou the torture and murder of millions of innocent people. A loving god doesn't allow belief in him and his religon of choice to be questionable and then eternally torture people for innocently believing otherwise. Your thinking is incredibly twisted Eleni, you obviously haven't either read the bible or given it any objective thought. A loving god wouldn't eternally torture gay people for having a loving, nurturing, beneficial and harmless same sex relationship. Don't give me this crap about a loving god - I'm not remotely that stupid or ignorant, I've read your bible, apparently unlike you.
Eleni said "Homosexuality, like adultery, like a lie, like stealing, is a sin.". How dare you equate a loving nurturing harmless relationship with things that hurt others?! You are one despicable person. The essence of morality is do whatever you want, but harm no one. Gays in loving committed relationships hurt no one and are by definition moral. You try to deprive gay couples of what is good and beautiful, your actions are by defintion immoral.
Eleni said "the Bible was written by men. Those men however wrote as they were superintended by God".
Don't be absurd Eleni, the bible contains nothing that ordinary humans couldn't have known and much that a god would not have gotten wrong but that primitive bigots would and did, like the sun revolving around the earth, or a "firmament" holding up the skys which are filled with stars which are just little dots of light that can fall to the earth and be held in the palm of your hand. Face it the only reason your a Christian is the accident of geography of your birth, do you honestly think that if you'd been born in Iran you'd be a Christian?!
Eleni said "You want a god you are comfortable with, that fits into your definition of what he should be like and that my friend may or may not have negative consequences for you in this life but most assuredly horrific and unimaginable consequences for you in the life to come." Oooo, I'm sooo scared - your big bad sky daddy is going to get me...Eleni, you're sadly mistaken, I don't want a god of any sort, such simply does not exist. I fart in your god's general direction.
There's never been any evidence of the supernatural, and never will be. Mere words written on paper aren't evidence of anything, one can write whatever lie they want on paper and it proves nothing. You have no more reason to believe the bible is true than you do to believe the Koran or Hinduism's holy texts are true. All three are loaded with mistakes, ignorance, and craziness because they all share the nature of religions, it is the nature of religions to be made up. There have been thousands of religions over the millenia and at best only one of them might be true and the odds are at best thousands to one that its yours. There's just as much evidence for the existence of Leprechauns, Zeus, Thor, and Apollo as your god, what reason do you have to believe in Jesus and not them? None.
Randi, I agree with Todd who is correct about the extrabiblical historic sources you can check out for yourself regarding Jesus Christ. There's so much to say on the subject but not enough room here. Randi, we all want to be loved and accepted, whether we're gay or straight. Jesus loves you no matter who you are, what you did or are doing. Come to Him and lay your burdens down. He wants to set you free. The fact is that we were all created with a capacity to know and love God so our hearts are truly restless until they find their rest in Him. There's nothing in this world - money, sex or any material thing that will truly satisfy us - only the love of Christ. But ,we must come to Him on His terms not ours; that is to repent and believe the gospel.
I agree with Shannon. This is a question of civil rights. We do not live in a theocracy. The "founding fathers" wanted Americans to have religious freedom and the separation of Church and State. Sexual orientation should be viewed in the same way as religious freedom. This article was very good in articulating the gray areas that exist in the argument. I agree that sexuality is mysterious and there are no clear cut categories, but how do you make an argument for gay rights without these clear cut medical science, nature/nurture arguments? How do you frame the debate in our world of sound bites? I think it really comes down to framing. Without the medical science argument, where do we go from here to argue for equal rights? I think that my home state of Massachusetts did this very well in defeating an attempt to place gay marriage on the ballot. This measure would have divided the state and cost a lot of money to defend. The argument became that the state constitution should give people rights and not take them away. We should not vote to take people's rights away. They did not focus on the medical science argument in their advertising. This worked well here, but I'm not sure you could use the same argument in the South or Midwest. Any other thoughts???
On a side note, I am a Christian, and I am embarassed by Bruce, Eleni, and Todd and all the other fundamentalists. This is really not the place to be evangelizing. We are trying to have an important debate about real people who have limited civil rights in this county. I don't think you are going to bring anyone into the Christian faith with these posts. You only trivalize the Christian faith, the Jesus you worship (who appears to be different from the Jesus I worship), and the argument. Lets have some real discussions about this issue instead of being sidelined by the Right Wingers.
Someone has been duplicating my last post, apparently they didn't like what I said but can't refute it, LOL.
Randi, your comment was
-
tagged as:
- solution
Randi, your comment was fabulous! *claps* Btw, I'm a Christian and I see nothing wrong with homosexuality. I've actually written a long thesis paper defending homosexuality as a "sin" and next week, I'm dong a 10-minute persuasive speech on it. =D
Todd, those are bold faced lies promulagated by Christians to prop up support for the false idea that Jesus was a historical figure. As Josepheus was born in 37 CE and Tacitus was born in 55 CE they couldn't have been contemporaries and eyewitnesses of Jesus. More problematic for the supposed account of Jesus by Josepheus is that Josepheus lived and died as a Jew. That he would claim Jesus was the Messiah and never have converted to Christianity simply isn't believable. The story of Jesus is intrusive in Josephus' narrative and can be seen to be an interpolation even in an English translation of the Greek text. Right after the wondrous passage quoted, Josephus goes on to say, "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..." Josephus had previously been talking about awful things Pilate had done to the Jews in general, and one can easily understand why an interpolator would have chosen this particular spot. But his ineptitude in not changing the wording of the bordering text left a "literary seam" (what rhetoricians might term aporia) that sticks out like a pimpled nose.
Moreover, the disputed passage was never cited by early Christian apologists such as Clement of Alexandria (ca.150-ca. 215 CE), who certainly would have made use of such ammunition had he had it!
The first person to make mention of this obviously forged interpolation into the text of Josephus' history was the church father Eusebius, in 324 CE. It is quite likely that Eusebius himself did some of the forging. As late as 891, Photius in his Bibliotheca, which devoted three "Codices" to the works of Josephus, shows no awareness of the passage whatsoever even though he reviews the sections of the Antiquities in which one would expect the disputed passage to be found. Clearly, the testimonial was absent from his copy of Antiquities of the Jews. 13 The question can probably be laid to rest by noting that as late as the sixteenth century, according to Rylands, 14 a scholar named Vossius had a manuscript of Josephus from which the passage was wanting.
Regarding the bit you quoted from Tacitus, ignoring the fact that he could not have been a contemporary of Jesus due to his much later birth:
[Tacitus wrote] at a time when Christians themselves had come to believe that Jesus had suffered under Pilate. There are three reasons for holding that Tacitus is here simply repeating what Christians had told him. First, he gives Pilate a title, procurator [without saying procurator of what! FRZ], which was current only from the second half of the first century. Had he consulted archives which recorded earlier events, he would surely have found Pilate there designated by his correct title, prefect. Second, Tacitus does not name the executed man Jesus, but uses the title Christ (Messiah) as if it were a proper name. But he could hardly have found in archives a statement such as "the Messiah was executed this morning." Third, hostile to Christianity as he was, he was surely glad to accept from Christians their own view that Christianity was of recent origin, since the Roman authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults. (The Historical Evidence for Jesus; p.16).
There are further problems with the Tacitus story. Tacitus himself never again alludes to the Neronian persecution of Christians in any of his voluminous writings, and no other Pagan authors know anything of the outrage either. Most significant, however, is that ancient Christian apologists made no use of the story in their propaganda - an unthinkable omission by motivated partisans who were well-read in the works of Tacitus. Clement of Alexandria, who made a profession of collecting just such types of quotations, is ignorant of any Neronian persecution, and even Tertullian, who quotes a great deal from Tacitus, knows nothing of the story. According to Robert Taylor, the author of another freethought classic, the Diegesis (1834), the passage was not known before the fifteenth century, when Tacitus was first published at Venice by Johannes de Spire. Taylor believed de Spire himself to have been the forger.
While Pliny the Younger may have talked of Christians he made no mention of Jesus and neither did any of the 38 writers listed here from the time or shortly after the time of the supposed Jesus.
http://englishatheist.org/indexz31.shtml
That a magical being performed miracles and was a major political figure and none of these writers saw him as significant enough to mention is simply unbelievable - Jesus never existed.
Todd, your welcome and moral to follow your religion as long as you aren't hurting others. When you try to convince people gays are wrongdoers for simply being in a loving committed same sex relationship you are harming those people. When you tell people that gays deserve to be eternally tortured you are creating a hostile environment towards gays that some can and will use to justify violence against gays, or at the very least denying gays equal rights such as the same protection religious people have in anti-discrimination laws or heterosexuals have to marry the one person they love most. To suggest that I'm hurting you in kind by pointing out the harm you do to gays simply doesn't wash. Demonizing gays and trying to deny them equal rights doesn't provide you with any significant benefit beyond some trivial cheap psychological thrill which you certainly can do without. But, for example your attempt to deny people like me the right to marry the one I love most, or to not be fired from my job for reasons other than job performance (like being gay) are a serious drastically harmful effect on me. Those no way you can even remotely compare the "imposition" not being able to bad mouth gays is to you compared to the huge impact you unjustifiable think you should be able to have on my life. You have the right to control your own life but not the right to control mine. Me marrying the one I love, or having job protection or hate crimes protection doesn't prevent you from living your life in any way you choose, you trying to force me to live according to your whims as a heinous infringement upon my right to live as I choose. You don't like same sex marriages then don't have one, but don't even dream of thinking you have the moral right to control any life other than your own - you don't. The right to freedom of religion also includes the right to freedom from religion.
Beth, it doesn't matter if being gay is a choice or not gays and lesbians still deserve equal rights. Religion is a choice and yet religious people are specifically singled out for special rights in hate crimes, anti-discrimination, and equal access laws. Gays deserve the same rights that religious groups have.
Having said that, the article greatly distorts the reality of the so-called ability to change. The Spitzer study quoted looked only at people merely claiming to have changed orientation, its estimated that these were only the best "successes" that Narth was able to find out of an estimated 250,000 people who went through "conversion therapy". Given the number that Spitzer merely thought had changed, this represents a 'success' rate of .02 percent. Spitzer did only telephone interviews with the subjects the majority of whom were employed by "exgay" organizations thus heavily motivated to lie. When asked why he didn't try to verify their stories with lie detectors or penile plethysmographs he stated "Oh, they'd never agree to that." It never seemed to occurr to him that that was because they were lying. Spitzer noted that he had a great deal of difficulty in finding the 200 people merely claiming to have changed, this took him 16 months. Spitzer said himself that he doubted most gay people could change by much a very firm sexual orientation. He said that while the religious right has distorted the results of his study he expects that change is quite rare. Contrary to what the article implied the Spitzer study demonstrated that its virtually impossible for anyone to change their sexual orientation. For more details on the Spitzer study look here:
Beth, please explain how my post was "evangelizing?" There was no effort on my part to convince anyone that they should believe in Christ. The post was an argument that a Christian could use to respond to Randi's definition of morality. While the article is about nature/nurture and the science of homosexuality, Randi made several ad hominem attacks against the Christian faith and Christians. Why does this type of debate have to degenerate into personal attacks with titles such as "right wingers?" As for your wish to have sexual orientation given the same freedom as religion, there is specific reference in the constitution to the free exercise of religion. It is silent on the issue of sexuality. I don't think a post here is going to change anyone's opinion as to what factors have an effect on a person's sexuality, or to change anyone's faith (if any). Perhaps these posts will encourage people to look at the issues more objectively, and not based upon a prejudice against a particular group of people, be they homosexual, straight, Christian or atheist.
Randi, congratulations on the ability to copy and paste. It demonstrates great skill as a logician. My intent has been to keep above the sarcasm, but your response is nothing more than a paste job from an online article (complete with footnotes that aren't actually supplied.) I don't expect you would believe even any contemporary accounts if there had been some written in a newspaper at the time of Christ's death. You would assert that they were fabrications. As for the absence of contemporary writings, Christ was not a major political figure, although some of his followers expected him to become one. The Pharisees saw him as a political threat, but he was a teacher, not a politician. Also, it is highly unlikely that the political and religious authorities would have had reason to record His miracles since they considered Him a heretic. They would have considered His miracles to be demonic. I'm not trying to deny anyone the right to love whomever they choose. I challenge you to find anything in my posts where I have said anything along the lines of "gays need to be eternally tortured." What have I written that has "caused harm to gays?" How have I been "demonizing gays?" From the tone of our respective posts, I believe I have a much greater tolerance for homosexuality than you have for Christianity. I gather you consider Christians to be a bunch of brain-washed, mindless sheep.
Eleni, I have the most wonderful relationship with the most caring, warm, nutturing, generous and thoughtful man in the world. If you think I'm going to give that up because of the ancient bigotries of primitive bronze age tribesmen's myths you're severely deluded. The essence of morality is do whatever you want, but harm no one. You go live your life however you feel as long as you don't hurt anyone else and leave me to do the same. Stop trying to push absurdities on people like me which we find too preposterous to exist. You know the muslims think you're going to hell to, why should I accept your religion any more than you accept theirs? There's exactly the same proof for there's as yours - face it, the only reason you believe in Christianity is the accident of your geography of birth. If you'd been born in Iran you'd be just as eagerly trying to convert people to Islam. You only believe in Jesus because it was pushed on you from the time you were too young to think logically and reasonably for yourself onwards - you never made a rational decision to believe and it is all obviously a hateful lie.
Doesnt the bible say to forgive ? They why all this fuss about Gays? Forgive them their sins, and move on.
And as to believing that the bible is the word of God, just written through man, then where do you draw the line of what is Gods word and what is Mans word?
President Bush says God has told him to spread freedom in the middle east. But yet Bush refused to listen to the Pope when he told Bush not to invade Iraq. Which one is the true vessel of Gods words? Bush, the Pope, or some guys who cant be challenged anymore because they have been dead for over 2000 years?
Also, none of the bible is believed to have been written until close to 900 years after the death of Christ.
Id also like to know why people cherry pick the bible too? Anyone remember these top hits of the bible :
Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife
Thou shalt not murder
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Yet millions of Christians willingly do these things daily.
Dont even get me started on the Money Changers.. How many so called Christians do whatever it takes to be wealthy?
So lets move on to the Gay thingy in leviticus 18:22. It reads something like "Man shall not lie down with another man. In the lord's eyes, it is an abomination". But the bible also has other decrees like "thou shalt not eat clams, they are unclean", which totally have not withstood the test of time. There are many such decrees in the bible. If you went to leviticus, i'm sure that you'd find more that make no sense by today's standards. Still , you will pick out the one thing that you personally agree with, and forget the rest.
In the real world, its called hypocrisy.
But many so called Christian's today isnt that some of the writings in the bible can no longer be applied to modern times??? Wouldnt Gods word be everlasting? If not, why hasnt there been the Bible Version 2.1? Well technically I guess there has been with the King James version, and others, but still so called Christians pick which version they personally like. And if the bible is a "moldable document" like is often said about our constitution, then why cant parts be molded to fit the times that you dont personally agree with?
If being Gay is a Chosen life style,then by your same standards, Christianity is a "Chosen Lifestyle" No one is born a Christian, they are influenced by their peers, and they ultimately decide to be Christian. They might feel they are born this way, they might know with all their might that they were born a christian, but the truth of the matter is, they chose it. Same a Muslims, Buddhist and Satan worshipers. Its a Choice.
After some of my friends became gay around their 20's I realized that there was a pattern to them, and it is three-fold. There are three types of homosexuals and all choose to be homosexuals: there is the explorer, the type that begins with heterosexual relationships, the bi-sexual relationships, and then "realizes" he is homosexual at the urging of others; there is the repressed, who usually has a distant and/or non-existent father, so he never understands sexuality fully and is usually snatched up by another homosexual: and then finally the pseudo-feminine male that everyone determines is gay before given a chance to see for himself. He almost always fulfills the role that others designate for him.
I have had friends in each of these categories, and two of them have "recovered" back into heterosexuality. The final one is from the first group, and has contracted AIDS and is about to die.
Although I do see homosexuality as a sin, as well as fornication and adultery, the person who engages in homosexuality is never to be hated. Almost all Christians react this way to homosexuality and do not believe in the Fred Phelps type insanity that the mass media would have us believe permeates the Christian community.
Human sexuality is not black or white as liberals and sexual pressure groups would have us believe. It is linked to the human psyche as a whole, which no one believes is a matter of black and white. Sexuality can become a painful experience if not tempered by self-control, and this is the utmost travesty, because our culture is not teaching our citizenry and children to control what they have. We need less STDs, less broken hearts, and less unwanted children.
Randi,your definition of morality is that a person can do whatever he wants, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. By your definition, if a Christian has chosen to accept Christ as his Savior and then tell others that they can have eternal life through Christ, he is acting morally. By accepting Christ, he is not hurting anyone. By spreading the Gospel, he is not hurting anyone. While another might intentionally or unintentionally misinterpret Scripture, and thereby take action that hurts someone else, that doesn't make the actions of the first person immoral. Your position is that "Gays in a loving relationship are hurting no one and by definition are behaving morally. Those who would interfere in those relationships for their own trivial psychological pleasure are by defintion (sic) behaving immorally." Your comments are a direct attack - and insult - against the faith of Christians. You are basing your attacks upon your definition of morality, and seem to take great "psychological pleasure" in ridiculing those believers. As for your assertion that there are no historical records of Jesus existence outside the Bible, you are mistaken. Tacitus, in Book XV of his annals, records the death of Christ by crucifixion. "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus . . ." There are also very early references to Christians in the letters exchanged between Pliny the Younger and Trajan. (eg. Letter XCVII et seq). Take a look at the writings of Josephus: Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day." There are other early references to Jesus, or Christ. Obviously, you are free to choose what to believe, but before adopting a definition of morality or attacking people's fundamental beliefs, I encourage you to think through the logical results of your definition, and engage in some research (with an open mind).
Can you imagine a civilization where a scientific/political article isn't just more grist for the spiritual mill? It's eye-opening however, as I always forget just how divisive you've all been trained to be. I like the red ball, I'll vote for it! No, the blue ball is better! (Joking we all know blue balls suck praise Jesus). I could go on and on.
My statement was that Christ was not a political figure. I didn't say that he wasn't an historical figure. If, as Randi says, Christ never existed, there are a few questions he should be able to answer because there would be historic documents to provide the answers. Where and when did the Christian faith begin? Who started it? What was the motivation for starting it? Why has it continued for 2000 years? Don't tell me it is because of money or control. Most Christian clergy live modest lives, and certainly aren't in it for the money. As for control, church leaders don't have "control" over their congregation, and certainly don't have control over non-members. As for the "38 prominent historians from the time of Jesus" you mentioned, I assume you are referring to the 39 writers mentioned at the website you copied from. I didn't take the time to research all 30, but of the first 10, one (Columella) would have been writing at the time of Christ. The others lived either centuries before, or at least a century after, Christ. There's uncertainty whether Damis ever lived. Italicus would have been 7 or 8 at the time of Christ's death, so he probably would not have been writing anything of substance at that time. Other historical writers listed are Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Josephus, which you believe never mentioned Christ (despite historic evidence to the contrary) so I don't expect you would accept written documentation from the time of Christ. You would believe it was all a fabrication. As for hate crime protection, in my opinion a crime is a crime, regardless of motivation. I don't think someone should be punished any less severely for a battery that wasn't hate-motivated than if it were hate-motivated. I'm unaware of any hate crime legislation that provides for increased punishment based upon the religion of the victim. The Bible says that because of our sin, we are faced with the potential of eternal death. I am a sinner, and could face eternity in hell. It doesn't matter whether the sin is a lie or murder - the penalty is the same. But, through the redeeming grace of Christ, I believe (because of my faith, not because of what someone told me) that I will spend eternity in heaven.
It troubles me that so much research and money is spent trying to figure this out. I think the best angle that MoJo (and other left wing) publications can take is to speak directly to the bulk of what currently makes up the Right - ie the christian conservatives - and make it very clear that Jesus wouldn't have cared a lick whether you're gay or straight, and would have loved you al the same (including your kids). That's the languange that I think will make progress happen!
Todd, its not important that the information didn't come from me, what's important is the truth and that's that there are no historical accounts of Jesus independent of the bible. For you to say that Jesus was not supposed to be a major historical figure is laughable, Christians claim he changed the world and caused an incredible stir at the time, not to mention the idea of the dead rising up and walking around - like that wouldn't have gotten press at the time.
The fact is of that link I gave you to 38 prominent historians from the time of Jesus lists many who were prolific and recorded endless volumes of mundane facts and obscure figures from the time. The idea that they would have recorded all manner of minor figures but not a supposed major figure from the time is simply not credible. Political and religious authorities might have considered such a person a threat, but the historians I listed were neither and their silence on Jesus is profound.
While you did not say that gays need to be eternally tortured you professed to be a believer and presumably one that believes its a sin to be gay. The bible says that sinners will be eternally tortured and if you believe in a just god then you believe this is what should happen to gays.
In contrast to most christians I treat gays and Christians as equals. I would never try to prevent Christians from marrying or being protected by anti-discrimination or hate crimes laws but most Christians would do this to gays.
Tell me you suppor the right of gays to equal marriage, the right of gays to be protected just as Christians are by hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws and I'll happily apologize for criticizing you. Tell me you won't do that and my criticism is bang on.
Todd, the existing hate crimes law protects people on the basis of religion race, and ethnic origin, it does not protect gays. You made a general statement about opposing hate crimes laws but you didn't committ to saying that if Christians are protected so should gays, or neither. You didn't say you support gays right to equal marriage, you didn't say you support gays being given the same rights Christians have in being protected by anti-discrimination laws. Obviously you don't support equal rights for gays and my criticism of you is bang on - you are a hater and a bigot.
I don't have time to investigate the actual dates the 39 historians I gave lived but a number of web sites all said at the time of the supposed Jesus. Frankly I don't believe you that they lived hundreds of years before or after. Your failure to be straightforward in answering my questions about whether gays deserve the same rights Christians have while insisting you are undeserving of my criticism shows you are a deceiver. You asked "Where and when did the Christian faith begin? Who started it? What was the motivation for starting it? Why has it continued for 2000 years?"
Irrelevant - when and where did the hindu faith begin? What was the motivation for starting it? Why has it continued for over 5000 years? If you assume Christianity must be valid because it has existed a long time, why not Hinduism? The fact is that you don't believe in Christianity for any rational reason, you believe solely because of the accident of your geography of birth. If you had been born in Iran you'd be indignantly defending Islam as the one true religion right now.
Matt, no one chooses to be gay. Do you remember choosing to be heterosexual? Do you remember a time when you had no sexual attractions one way or another, you conciously weighed the pros and cons of being attracted to men and women, made a choice to be attracted to one and subsequently experienced that sexual attraction? Don't be absurd Matt, gays don't choose their orientation any more than you did.
As to your friends supposedly choosing to be gay, assuming you aren't lying that is an illusion. Many if not most gays grow up internalizing the homophobia people like you preach and attempt to be straight until they realize that they can no longer do it. Some after a time of accepting their sexuality go back in the closet and attempt to pretend to be heterosexual again (so called "exgays"). Even most "exgays" when pressed admit they are still attracted to men and that they have little or no attraction to women. Many more, like myself, are bisexual and have relationships with both men and women. Just because a bisexual goes from a relationship with a woman, to one with a man, back to one with a woman doesn't mean they have chosen their orientation. They haven't, the same sex and opposite sex attractions always exist regardless of who we are with. The vast majority of gays report that their sexual attractions appeared at an early age unbidden prior to any sexual experience - just like happened with you Matt. Gays experience is no different than yours. If you think people choose to be gay, then try an experiment - make a choice to be gay for a week and see if you experience any same sex sexual desires. Its time you stopped being a bigot and recognized what all major physical and mental health organizations say, and even most anti-gay "exgay" organizations, no one chooses to experience same sex attractions.
As to the distant father theory, there is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting this myth. If there was any truth to this you might ask yourself why there was no boom of gays after WWII given all the absent/distant fathers there were. You might ask yourself why there are no more gays in the black community than in the white community given the well known problem of absent fathers in black households.
Shidlo and Schroeder studied 200 gays attending "exgay" "therapy". Of the 200 they only found 1 they think might have changed orientation - possibly a bisexual to begin with. Many of those in the "therapy" felt harmed by the experience. If being gay was simply a choice the vast majority of them would have been able to make the change - they were not because its not a choice. This and the estimated .02 percent "success" rate ( a 99.98 percent failure rate) shown by the Spitzer study I mentioned earlier is powerful evidence that being gay isn't achoice regardless of the lies right wing bigots like to put forth.
And even if it were a choice, so what? Religion is a choice and we don't deny people equal rights for choosing the "wrong" religion nor should we treat the situtuation with gays any differently.
Doesn't this article, and many individuals' new perspectives on sexual orientation, kind of place sexual orientation in the same boat as religion?? I mean, the unicorn can't prove or disprove the existence of the phoenix, right?? Lets talk real here folks.
Randi, one of the many erroneous assumptions you have made is that Christians believe as they do because they happen to be born here in the West. You posit that everyone born in the Middle East must be a Muslim, a Hindu or a Buddhist. What you fail to understand (and sadly Beth as well) is that one does not become a Christian or is a Christian because one is born into it. A true believer becomes a Christian when he or she is truly converted to Christ; when he or she recognizes he or she is a sinner, repents and believes that Christ is the only propitiation for their sin. Sure there are thousands of nominal "Christians" who have no real love or devotion to Christ; who do the church thing and go through the motions but have never truly been converted. As for the those born in the East, there are literally thousands of true Christians born in the Middle East and China who worship in underground churches because they are persecuted for their faith. I know some of them. So you see Randi, you're wrong. Another thing, everyone talks about tolerance but the one thing they won't tolerate is the name of Jesus Christ and those of us who love Him. He came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the greatest. We - you, me, everyone are all sinners who need the Savior. By the way, I have several gay friends who are wonderful, caring people - I love them but I don't condone their lifestyle and they know where I stand. It is possible to love another human being genuinely and yet not agree with certain things they do. You are very very wrong when you think Christians hate gays. I believe it is an act of love to warn people when there's danger ahead. To be more concerned with whether you will be rejected and despised as a result of speaking the truth is what is selfish and unloving. There's no virtue in that; that's easy and everyone does it; so much easier to play nicey nice while souls are perishing. As for this turning into an opportunity to evangelize, I would have been happy to stick with the issue of our First Amendment Rights but the genesis of this entire dialogue was Randi's venomous attack on the Christian faith and God's Word. As an orthodox believer I have no choice but to defend the faith and to present the gospel. I make no apologies for evangelizing because I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God unto the salvation of those who believe. Randi, you are free to do what you want to do but the problem is that you want everyone else to say your lifestyle it's o.k. Christians are not opposed to your civil liberties, we are just opposed to you marketing your lifestyle as morally acceptable and wanting to silence those of us who disagree with you. The truth is not always easy to bear but surrendering to it will set you free.
It is not a fact that there is a god.
Man made god in his own image. If god does exist, well that's swell; but I am tired of pea-brained monkeys proclaiming with certainty that this so
called god exists.
By the way, does your monkey god have a penis?
Eleni Rigual wrote:
"God Himself, in the person of Christ, laid his life down for all of us willingly because there is no other way for human beings to come into a right relationship with God".
What a nonsense.
omar wrote: "Eleni Rigual wrote: 'God Himself, in the person of Christ, laid his life down for all of us willingly because there is no other way for human beings to come into a right relationship with God'. What a nonsense."
The Bible is way ahead of you: "The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
"Fool hath given a circular argument and round and round we go."
So a book says that those who do not agree with what is written in it are fools or wrong . So what? So says the Koran so it must be true?
So, stop evangelizing and get back on the subject.
I think sexuality is far too complex to be assigned to a binary causality: biology vs. environment. And, I really don't care. Searching for the CAUSE of homosexuality implies that it is a problem, an illness, a negative, by definition. When do we see studies about the CAUSE of heterosexuality? Thus, I see the focus on the quest for THE biological causes of homosexuality to be misguided. If a biological cause can be pinpointed, then people will want to "cure" it.
My sexuality (which used to be straight, but is now lesbian) never had any effect on how I performed in my profession, how I raised my children, how I paid my taxes, etc. An enlightened society would simply accept people regardless of their sexuality. Some lesbians have been appalled when a well-known lesbian writer fell in love with a man, even calling her a traitor. To me that reaction is as narrow-minded and bigoted as homophobia.
Sexuality simply has to do with whom we have sex, with whom we find attractive, about whom we fantasize. It can be surprising; I've heard straight men admit finding Johnny Depp attractive; I've heard many a lesbian say she'd make an exception for Patrick Stewart. A straight married woman with children from a very conservative religious background confided in me that she thinks all women must fantasize about sex with other women sometimes. I've had straight married men tell me about homosexual experiences in their pasts.
But while such admissions may make for interesting conversations, a person's sexuality, regardless of the complex tangle of biological and environmental influences, is irrelevant to how we conduct our professional lives, raise our children, and deal with all the myriad chores of daily life like cleaning cat boxes, paying bills, and doing laundry.
Whatever the "causes" of the various forms of sexuality and no matter how fluid they may be, the only thing that matters is that they should be accepted as part of our common, yet varied, humanity. Thus, a person's sexuality should not subject that person to discrimination and bigotry and should not prevent that person from having equal rights by law in our society.
Biological determinism has never been a basis for liberation , just look at history and its uses to justify the most horrific abuses of people.
"If science proves sexual orientation is more fluid than we've been led to believe, can homosexuality still be a protected right?"
Sexual orientation is a protected right. That protects everyone, not just homosexuals.
I find it odd such credence is given to the personal choice of one (gay) man. His choice to live an asexual life (which we only have his word as proof of) should not be extrapolated to have greater meaning for all gay individuals.
If it true that sexuality is a personal choice, logically we must conclude then that monks can set a standard for heteros?
The repressive nature of homophobia, especially in the US, is so palpable that we only need look at the recent scandals du jure.
One Senator, apparently forced to live a lie, seeks an outlet in airport men’s room. A congressman, we find out would rather be viewed a bigot then admit his true sexual persuasion.
At what point will this end?
What business is it of anyone's, what another person's sexual preference or orientation is? To each his/her own. Opinions based on biblical references are okay as long as others are equally free to voice references from other books. The bible is a compilation by committee. Whether or not it is the "word of God" is debatable, whether the "believers" agree or not. Debate is healthy. Honesty about one's preferences is healthy. Open discussion is healthy. We are all one.
Two observations: 1) the author uses the terms sexual identity and sexual orientation interchangeably. They are distinctly different. Orientation refers to attraction-response mechanisms. Identity refers to how the individual perceives their sexuality. The two are often incongruent and it is the identity that has been demonstrated to be fluid - not orientation. Even the NARTH people concede they cannot change sexual attraction and response. They can only change behavior. 2) Male sexuality and female sexuality are very different and any comparison of the two is a ruse. Women are less sexual than men (even in lesbian couples), and they respond more to emotional intimacy. Men are far more visually driven and respond with an attraction and physical manifestation. While a woman can be passive in an erotic situation, the male has to be stimulated (naturally or through the magic of pharmaceuticals) to perform. In other words, he's gotta want it.
If only the world would open their eyes and see the truth!!
God(Nature)does NOT MAKE MISTAKES! If you take "Revealed" religion out of the equation, you wont have the need for "this therapy" or "that therapy."
You would have a "civilized world of Males and females who would love those for whom they have a NATURAL attract to.
Just because Judeo-Christianity "says" that homosexuality is an abomination doesn't make it so.
Up until Judeo-Christianity was born, same sex relationships were the norm. Yet a bunch of religious ZEALOTS decide that they don't like same sex relationships, so they start writing their "Biblical" lies to alter the perception of their followers.
"I see, I say, I saw" is a lie that, if told over and over, becomes the truth. As time goes on and people begin to believe what they hear, then naturally, they will hate or despise homosexuality.
Homosexuality wasn't even a "label" until the 19th Century people! What's that say about the influence of "Revealed" religion!
Women were considered "property" by male nobelmen and used exclusively to bear them a males to carry on the family name.
Look at our own Constitution. Women were GIVEN rights. Only the Rich good old White men of Power had Constitutional Rights.
So, before scientists and religious factions try to claim their studies as true and accurate, they should ask themselves, "When did I choose to become Homosexual?"
Get rid of the religion and science and let people marry for love. And for the more morbidly feable brains, NO, I don't want to marry my animal! But you all must want to, since you bring it up and seem to know the sexual positions with an animal, disgusting all!
Once upon a time, it was easy for the American Right to smear its opponents on the left -- they could simply equate them with the nation's communist enemies. It didn't matter that the American "left" (Democrats) had more in common with the Right than international communism, the smear was useful.
Now, however, our international enemy --Islamic Fundamentalism -- is actually the polar opposite of what liberals stand for -- their actions on women rights are deplorable, they insist on theocracy, they love torture and the death penalty, they demand to control the culture (TV, movies, music), they rail against rampant sexuality, they seek to spread their ideology via force, and they have a well-defined black-and-white sense of truth.
Sound familar? It should because it's the agenda of people who have posted here like David, Bruce, Matt, and Eleni Rigual. It's also the agenda of the Christian Fundamentalists like George Bush who run the government right now.
As a gay Christian and as a long time reader of Mothr Jones, I found all the comments on the article to make fascinating reading. I want to thank everyone for the excellent discussion of scriptural and historical material. I'd like to make a point about the Constitution and "free choice." When the Constitution was written, the issue
of "Freedom of Religion" was a major concern. Jefferson and the Founding Fathers knew very well how dangerous a government enforced "State Religion" could be. It had been little more than 200 years since hundreds of English Protestants had died in the flames of
Bloody Mary's State Roman Catholocism.
Our founding parents knew that they had to make religion into a free choice for all people. If they did not, then some leader would find some way to force all people to worship God... and worship the state... in the way that they wished.
Nations across Europe and the world had always imposed a state religion on their people. This State Religion enabled the emporers, kings, Princes and Popes to impose all sorts of political, cultural, religious,
and economic controls over all of their people. This type of state religion is not at all what Jesus called for in the New Testemant.
In the late 1700's "Freedom of Religion" was a sort of symbolic issue for freedom in general. If the central government of the USA was not going to impose a state religion, then the central government would not impose a variety of other state controls on US Citizens. This fact insured that the USA would give its people far greater freedoms than the other nations of the earth. This position on religion is far closer to the teachings of the New Testament.
Today, homosexuality is the symbolic issue that represents freedom in general. Some of this nations's people and institutions, for a variety of religious, personal, fear based and power-seeking reasons, are working hard to impose a state-sanctioned sexual orientation and code of conduct on every person in the country. In so doing, they are seeking to limit everybody's freedom and force everyone into a single political, religious, cultural and economic mind-set. A Perpetual Republican Majority, as it were. This is an Anti-Christian and Anti-American action, but it is certainly a popular action among some people. As Americans, we should not allow this nation to be forced into a single opinion or option about religon. Niether should we allow this nation to be forced into a single opinion or option about sexuality. Freedom of opinion in these areas prepresents and insures freedom in all other areas.
No matter where we stand on the issue of religion, let us stand together on the issue of freedom.
